Kudos to this discerning writer for taking the time to intelligently address the rampant dumbing down of book criticism, a sad and costly trend for “literature, for the serious critic provides a vital service to the understanding the really great books, and without well-informed, bonafide literary criticism, truly dedicated readers and students will inevitably miss or misunderstand (lacking context) many great works.
In an interview with Nathan Rabin over at the A.V. Club in May of 2007, Louis C.K. remarked with pointed reprobation the distinction between critic and reviewer:
To me, there’s a huge difference between criticism and reviewing. I really love reading good criticism of television and film. To me, a critic is someone who analyzes a show, describes it, talks about the people in it, puts it in historical context of other shows like it, compares it and stuff, and then talks about the intent of the show and whether it failed or didn’t. At the end, they usually say, “By the way: not for me.” But reviewers now just go, they’re like bloggers, they go, “Ha ha hi. Don’t bother seeing this, it’s shit. Trust me, it’s crap. I like this show. That show I just saw sucks. Fuck you. And by the way, I ate a muffin today.”
View original post 3,078 more words